This may be perhaps the first time I’ve embraced an article from the Yale Environment 360 forum, the opener reads:
Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.
Al Gore’s latest book where he had to photoshop in some hurricanes comes to mind.
The NCDC sponsored climate change report where they photoshopped in a flooded house also comes to mind.
And, yes even the snowstorms reportedly caused by global warming this winter are also reminders of how common this bogus linkage to weather is.
From:
Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind
By Ben Geman
Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, [Titled: Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate] argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.
…
They write:
Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.
The essay also suggests that climate advocacy and research have become too intertwined, with environmentalists seeking to represent the science as “apocalyptic, imminent, and certain.” The science has been harmed as a result, they argue, stating:
Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.
…
The Yale Environment 360 website has a comments section below the articles. Look for a lively response to their new piece.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul Vaughan (22:07:36) :
I could not agree with you more, Paul.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The more I think about it…the more I see red…and lightning bolts start to shoot from my eyes:
Al Gore [forgive me but he really is culpable here] can not make money on real and legitimate environmental causes…so, curiously, you never hear him using his platform to speak out on such.
But he CAN make a lot of money…on telling and propagating a lie and a fraud.
That is royally *****d up!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Any fool knows that the so called “Climate Scientists” need their funding cut, and the key cards disabled.
However, I am all for Sensible Science developing new energy forms and conservation.
I am not for 66 year paybacks as unsubsidized PV systems require – and of course the maximum panel life is 20-30 years – and Anything that requires a subsidy is non-economic.
Insulation, Orientation, Thermal Mass, Daylighting, Stack Ventilation, Sensible Planning, Xeriscape, Telecommuting, etc., and more CO2 (for the plants)
Correction on “spuedo-religion of CAGW”. Meant “pseudo-religion of CAGW”
UGH….I write too fast. Fire that editor [me].
“Where was Al Gore when he could have spoken up for the wholesale elimination of large sharks in the world’s oceans who have ruled the deep for hundreds of millions of years?”
SHOULD have said:
Where was Al Gore when he could have spoken up AGAINST the wholesale elimination of large sharks, who have ruled the deep for hundreds of millions of years, in the world’s oceans?
Sorry for having to keep correcting.
To err is human.
And IPCC.
Marlene Anderson
Canada and the US should be standing shoulder to shoulder to push back on AGW nonsense. Instead, Obama starting drinking the kool-aid>>
Canada will stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US, only in that our economy is so intertwined with the US that we must adopt the same basic regulations or see our products stopped at the boarder. That said, Obama and Clinton seem more interested in slapping allies like Canada around while apologising to and appeasing enemies. A lot of Canadians were swept up in Obamamania. I wonder how they will feel about being p****ed on for trying to get a converation going between the countries that border the arctic on how to administer it:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2740472
The arrogance of being told how we should be dealing with our native peoples (the US having such a stirling record on that), and being told that countries like China and India and others who don’t border on the Arctic should have had a seat at the meeting? Is that the whole list now Hillary? Are you sure you don’t want Al Queda invited too, they’be been complaining about climate change as well. How about Khadaffy and Chavez while we’re at it? Ar are you just ticked that some tiny insignificant country actually took a leadership position on something without you? I thought that the end of the Bush era was no more bullying the planet. Well turns out that meant no more bullying enemies, just allies instead.
The Yale article shows more than it states by its context to a broader issue that surrounds it.
NOTE-doing this on my Blackberry so spell & grammar checking is out the window : )
1) The part of world that is modern is energy intensive.
2) The more wealthy societies in the modern world are the most free.
3) Within that wealth and freedom exist the ability to have a greater ability to promote imtellectual systems (ideaologies).
4) Not all of those ideaologies are compatible with sustaining the production of energy or the freedom.
5) The militant/political green ideaology (activist environmentalism) is one of those that are not compatible with the energetic modern free societies.
6) The more commonsense individualistic approach to living-in-a-healthy-place is compatible with the energetic modern free societies.
7) A tactical retreat by militant/political green ideaology as shown in the Yale is not a strategic defeat for them.
8) Stay vigilant
The more important topic of what is the basis of the militant/political green ideaology is another topic. It is a very important & intriging topic.
John
I still laugh everytime I see that southern hemisphere cyclone off the coast of Mexico on the cover of Al’s book. It’s all about marketing. The science be damned!
Anthony,
I welcome your acknowledgement of this issue and this first signal of open mindedness. I hope you can take it forward.
Best.
You know the tide has turned when President Clinton made jokes about it.
Tide turned you note. Not tide fully in.
What a breath of fresh air! But I strongly doubt that Obama would pay any attention to it.
The truth is that all climate scientists have been silenced by the corrupt and shameful actions of their role models. They have become aware of a massive army of interested observers who will take apart any paper or pronouncement they make and expose every flaw to a world-wide audience.
Let’s face it, they’re scared and their work is now largely pointless.
The politicians ,who have been so ready to seize every doom-laden word of the scientists, helpfully distorted and ratcheted up into a barely-controlled hysteria by the media, find themselves without a product to use for an alibi. What are they to do? They change the argument into one of social justice, energy supplies, and healthier living.
Politicians also rely on the public having a short attention span and short memories. Eventually, when they judge the time is right, “global warming” will come back onto their agenda, minus all the current crop of tainted climate science and discredited climate scientists.
davidmhoffer (23:06:26) :
David, you forgot Robert Mugabe.
I think this post remind us why this solar minimum should be called “The Gored Minimum”. If it develops.
Because 40 years from now no one will remember the AGW scam. Just like almost everyone today have forgotten the Ice Age scam of the seventhies. (except a few)
But “The Gored Minimum” ….will forever remind the coming genererations about that one man who was such a clever advocate for the AGW scam.
@ur momisugly pft:
One very good reason the US does not look for oil in the US is that it is foolish to use up a resource when it will only get more expensive. Use the resource as sold by others while it is cheap – when it is expensive, develop your own resource potential to cover local demand, and even make a profit of those with less foresight.
It is what I would do, and as I understand from my father’s girlfriend who has a well in Texas (as many there do), the govt puts strict limits on production in the US. It makes sound economic sense to me.
openunatedgirl (19:05:59) :
Certainly there are problems caused by our abuse of the environment, and even our foolish town planning and useless response to emergencies.
Unfortunately the current misplaced obsession with demonising CO2 is causing most environmental efforts to be misdirected to preventing the addition of just one more molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of air.
We can address real issues properly and move to a renewable energy cycle, without crippling the western world’s economy, and without imposing massive restrictions on developing counties and enforcing continued poverty on them. But we can only do this if we accept that burning fossil fuels has not changed anything perceptibly, and probably will not in the future, and certainly not more than we can cope with given the expected state of our technology in half a century (assuming we don’t cripple our economy, etc, etc, etc).
Well, I guess it’s time to put these out there again:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
We have a functionally unlimited supply of ALREADY DEVELOPED energy technologies. All that matters is what is cheapest and how stupid the various governments can be.
We run out of energy when there are no longer eroding mountains on the earth and the oceans are gone:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/
And we never run out of resources to use to make things:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
The comment about The Club Of Rome being very wrong is “spot on”. The Club Of Rome “running out panic” is horridly and spectacularly wrong. I’ve also seen references that assert they are among the early folks pushing the AGW broken meme as well.
The reality is that we have no need to “conserve” resources. We ought to conserve species and forests as they can be extinguished, but things like copper and iron don’t leave the planet and things like coal just turn into CO2 that goes into limestone that gets cooked back into oil per one of the demonstrated abiotic oil chemical pathways.
So yes, we ought to clean up the trash (it is the treasure from which we can recover resources, like oil and copper) and keep crap out of the air. But ‘decarbonizing’ makes about as much sense as ‘dewatering’ your bathroom or ‘defooding’ your kitchen. I’m all for efficiency improvements where it makes sense, but mandating that I put a mercury filled device prone to breakage in food preparation areas is just crazy. Especially when we have at least 10,000 years of proven energy supply at low costs.
DirkH (19:35:20) :
‘Ere! There is nothing wrong with the smell from a brewery! All of the smells are awesome, even the heavy yeasty one. An in Germany the laws dictate no chemicals too, so it will definitely not be toxic! Drinking it is, of course, but it is enjoyable, so that’s OK.
For gods’ sake, don’t tell the greenies about the CO2 produced or they’ll tax or ban the stuff!
(speaking as an ex-brewer and current full-time amateur ‘quality control officer’)
More than thirty years ago I was convinced that looking after the global environment was what the Green movement was all about and I approved of the movement in general terms. Then I noticed that various individuals of my acquaintance who had joined Green organisations were beginning to display many of the slightly odd mannerisms of other old acquaintances who had become Charismatic Christians.
It was no great cognitive leap to realise the Green movement had, sadly, become a religion and one that was seeking world domination. I put them to one side, in my mind, until Climategate arrived and my personal bull**** detector went into full alert mode. I am grateful that I was steered to this site in my search for information and I am cheered that this group from Yale are at least beginning to distance themselves from CAGW, CC or any of the permutations of doom. But in their pursuit of ‘low carbon energy’ they have missed the very relevant fact that Man continually refines technology; as an example, in the late 1950s I owned a 650cc 4stroke British motorcycle which was grossly unreliable, drank copious quantities of petrol and oil and was generally an exciting beast. My son now rides, among other machines, a 1200cc Yamaha which uses a fraction of the petrol my old 500cc bike did, uses no oil between services and is not only utterly reliable but is increadibly fast compared with my old beast. And sounds about as exciting as a sewing machine. The error many who are clueless about machinery of any kind is that they do not realise just how powerful and dramatic changes in established technology and machinery can be; most Greens shudder when they see a fast car, but Porsche is one manufacturer which has refined current design to the point where they now have built a very fast sports car which uses a fraction of the energy that a Toyota Prius does and yet the Prius with it’s enormous carbon footprint (silly term, I know, but the Greens love their mantras) will no doubt remain a religious icon to the Green movement..
Sorry for a typo; I have referred to the same bike as both 650cc and 500cc – it was a 650cc machine, in fact. And despite its myriad faults, I loved it with a passion only other enthusiasts can understand!
””””Kate (01:29:35) :
The truth is that all climate scientists have been silenced by the corrupt and shameful actions of their role models. They have become aware of a massive army of interested observers who will take apart any paper or pronouncement they make and expose every flaw to a world-wide audience.
Let’s face it, they’re scared and their work is now largely pointless.
The politicians ,who have been so ready to seize every doom-laden word of the scientists, helpfully distorted and ratcheted up into a barely-controlled hysteria by the media, find themselves without a product to use for an alibi. What are they to do? They change the argument into one of social justice, energy supplies, and healthier living.
Politicians also rely on the public having a short attention span and short memories. Eventually, when they judge the time is right, “global warming” will come back onto their agenda, minus all the current crop of tainted climate science and discredited climate scientists.”””””’
Kate,
Your excellent points I concur with, but your tone I think should be more hopeful.
Not only do politicians have long memories, the blogosphere has even longer memories . . . . . . and there are a hell of a lot more of us. : ) And people like Watts, M & M, etc etc, too numberous to mention here.
Cheer up.
John
“in the late 1950s I owned a 650cc 4stroke British motorcycle which was grossly unreliable, drank copious quantities of petrol and oil and was generally an exciting beast.” Twenty bucks says it was a Norton Commando. Was my favorite machine also. When it ran.
Point of clarification: Let’s not make the mistake that the socialists do with ‘healthcare’: access to goods and services produced by others is never a ‘right’. It may be eminently desirable, a wish devoutly to be achieved, but not a right.
“True rights,” says Walter E. Williams, “such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another.” The government cannot provide goods and services as ‘rights’, because the government has no resources of its own; it must first take in order to give. See Prof. Williams’s illuminating essay here:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/is-health-care-a-right.html
That said, the rest of R. de Haan’s contribution is right on the money! I recommend you all print it out and post it prominently for all the alarmists, warmers, doomsayers, Luddites, Marxists, and faux-environmentalists to see and contemplate.
And also read and re-read E.M.Smith’s (03:20:24) seminal “There is no shortage. . .” posts, linked in his comment above.
/Mr Lynn
Come on all you well meaning green folk — there are real problems to address before you lose all your credibility: how about the pollution of the oceans and the depletion of the global fisheries, for example?
I am not sure if this will work. AGW theory has cost many billions in direct and indirect costs, and an accounting should be demanded.
AGW true believers dearly love their apocalypse, and actually believe.
AGW profiteers, like Gore, windmill salesmen, and the industrial groups pushing for cap-n-trade smell trillions in trading revenues.
This is not going to go away easily.
And promoting the idea that non-carbon based energy will work without nuke power is a delusion.
All the talk about wind and solar replacing conventional sources because economy of scale will make those technologies’ economically viable in the future is pure fantasy. The numbers cannot possibly EVER pencil out because of horrendous capital cost that can never be brought to heel due to:
1) Pathetic energy density. It simply requires too much manufactured hardware to product too few kilowatts, even if you assume absurdly optimistic conversion efficiency.
2) Pitiful capacity factor. All that hardware lies idle “when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow”.
3) Huge power plant footprint. As a result of the pathetic energy density, wind and solar have an enormous physical footprint that makes them all but impossible to thread through the U.S. environmental review process where many of the same folks who say they want renewables stand waiting to stop it. T. Boon Pickenss learned this one the hard way; think “Texas Prairie Chickens”.